<sandro> PRESENT: Ian, Boris, Pfps, Bernardo, Sandro, MarkusK, michael_schneider, Achille, bijan, wallace, Christine, Rinke, Ivan, alanruttenberg
<sandro> REMOTE: Zhe
06:50:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc ←
06:50:18 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl wg
Evan Wallace: zakim, this will be owl wg ←
06:50:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace ←
06:50:33 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl
Evan Wallace: zakim, this will be owl ←
06:50:33 <Zakim> ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago ←
06:51:14 <wallace> ScribeNick: wallace
(Scribe set to Evan Wallace)
07:06:02 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
(No events recorded for 14 minutes)
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:06:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:06:39 <ivan> zakim, drop Riveiera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop Riveiera_B ←
07:06:39 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B' ←
07:06:52 <ivan> zakim, who is there?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is there? ←
07:06:52 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ivan.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, ivan. ←
07:07:14 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:14 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:16 <Zakim> +Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:31 <Zakim> -Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B ←
07:07:40 <Zakim> -Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:41 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
07:07:42 <Zakim> Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:54 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:54 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:07:56 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:08:17 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
07:08:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:21 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
07:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:12:24 <wallace> topic: Issue 138 Name of dateTime datatype
07:13:04 <wallace> pfps: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg
Peter Patel-Schneider: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg ←
07:13:17 <wallace> ... and there is no problem
... and there is no problem ←
07:13:34 <wallace> pfps: we will be using as identity the single timeline
Peter Patel-Schneider: we will be using as identity the single timeline ←
07:13:51 <wallace> ... not the seven value rep.
... not the seven value rep. ←
07:14:03 <wallace> ... our identity is their equality
... our identity is their equality ←
07:14:17 <wallace> ... The only thing we might consider is a note to
... The only thing we might consider is a note to ←
07:14:38 <wallace> ... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there
... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there ←
07:15:23 <wallace> boris: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence
Boris Motik: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence ←
07:15:50 <wallace> pfps: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone
Peter Patel-Schneider: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone ←
07:16:04 <wallace> ... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue
... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue ←
07:16:34 <wallace> ... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week
... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week ←
07:16:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:08 <wallace> pfps: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium
Peter Patel-Schneider: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium ←
07:17:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:30 <wallace> pfps: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon
Peter Patel-Schneider: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon ←
07:17:40 <wallace> ivan: my only fear about this is
Ivan Herman: my only fear about this is ←
07:17:59 <wallace> ... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are
... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are ←
07:18:20 <sandro> Boris: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int.
Boris Motik: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:18:29 <wallace> ... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec.
... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec. ←
07:19:18 <sandro> Sandro: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much.
Sandro Hawke: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:19:27 <wallace> pfps: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name
Peter Patel-Schneider: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name ←
07:20:42 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:20:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:20:59 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:21:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:21:06 <wallace> +1
+1 ←
07:21:08 <bernardo> +1
07:21:19 <Zhe> 0
07:21:27 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
07:21:30 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:21:38 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:21:39 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:21:45 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:21:51 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
07:22:12 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:22:16 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:23:45 <wallace> ... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain
... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain ←
07:24:14 <wallace> ivan: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account?
Ivan Herman: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account? ←
07:24:46 <wallace> sandro: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time
Sandro Hawke: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time ←
07:25:13 <wallace> pfps: I don't think there will be a problem with this.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think there will be a problem with this. ←
07:26:37 <sandro> sandro: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.)
Sandro Hawke: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:27:53 <sandro> Topic: New Issues Affecting Core Documents
07:28:21 <sandro> subtopic: Issue-147 Add UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
07:28:57 <wallace> boris: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange
Boris Motik: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange ←
07:30:51 <pfps> boris: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means
Boris Motik: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:10 <wallace> boris: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer
Boris Motik: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer ←
07:31:30 <pfps> boris: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment
Boris Motik: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:33 <wallace> ... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much
... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much ←
07:31:46 <wallace> ... rdf already has it
... rdf already has it ←
07:32:09 <wallace> ivan: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL
Ivan Herman: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL ←
07:32:16 <pfps> boris: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection
Boris Motik: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:52 <pfps> boris: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes)
Boris Motik: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes) [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:57 <wallace> boris: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there
Boris Motik: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there ←
07:33:12 <wallace> ... this is something we would only add to the general language
... this is something we would only add to the general language ←
07:33:16 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:33:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:33:18 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
07:33:35 <schneid> m_schnei: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF
Michael Schneider: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:33:57 <wallace> bijan: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet.
Bijan Parsia: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet. ←
07:34:16 <wallace> ... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners
... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners ←
07:34:39 <wallace> ... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition
... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition ←
07:34:48 <schneid> m_schnei: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full
Michael Schneider: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:34:59 <wallace> ... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here
... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here ←
07:35:05 <schneid> m_schnei: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics
Michael Schneider: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:35:12 <sandro> RRSAgent, make records public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make records public ←
06:50:00 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc ←
06:50:18 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl wg
zakim, this will be owl wg ←
06:50:18 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace
Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, wallace ←
06:50:33 <wallace> zakim, this will be owl
zakim, this will be owl ←
06:50:33 <Zakim> ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, wallace; I see SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM scheduled to start 20 minutes ago ←
06:51:14 <wallace> ScribeNick: wallace
07:06:02 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:06:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:06:03 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:06:39 <ivan> zakim, drop Riveiera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop Riveiera_B ←
07:06:39 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not see a party named 'Riveiera_B' ←
07:06:52 <ivan> zakim, who is there?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is there? ←
07:06:52 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ivan.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, ivan. ←
07:07:14 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:14 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:16 <Zakim> +Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:31 <Zakim> -Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B ←
07:07:40 <Zakim> -Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: -Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:41 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has ended ←
07:07:42 <Zakim> Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Riviera_B, Riviera_B.a ←
07:07:54 <ivan> zakim, dial Riviera_B
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial Riviera_B ←
07:07:54 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
07:07:55 <Zakim> SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_OWL(F2F)2:30AM has now started ←
07:07:56 <Zakim> +Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: +Riviera_B ←
07:08:17 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
07:08:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:21 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
07:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B ←
07:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, sandro, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:12:24 <wallace> subtopic: XSD data types
07:12:35 <wallace> issue 138
07:13:04 <wallace> pfps: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg
Peter Patel-Schneider: talked with Henry Thompson of XML schema wg ←
07:13:17 <wallace> ... and there is no problem
... and there is no problem ←
07:13:34 <wallace> pfps: we will be using as identity the single timeline
Peter Patel-Schneider: we will be using as identity the single timeline ←
07:13:51 <wallace> ... not the seven value rep.
... not the seven value rep. ←
07:14:03 <wallace> ... our identity is their equality
... our identity is their equality ←
07:14:17 <wallace> ... The only thing we might consider is a note to
... The only thing we might consider is a note to ←
07:14:38 <wallace> ... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there
... implementers that you should keep the timezone info there ←
07:15:23 <wallace> boris: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence
Boris Motik: need to preserve the info needed for structural equivalence ←
07:15:50 <wallace> pfps: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone
Peter Patel-Schneider: this means that we can use the new dataTime with required timezone ←
07:16:04 <wallace> ... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue
... they are meeting next week to resolve all their issue ←
07:16:34 <wallace> ... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week
... we will thus know the name for this restricted type next week ←
07:16:52 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:08 <wallace> pfps: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium
Peter Patel-Schneider: they are going for their second last call soon, before publishing moratorium ←
07:17:21 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:17:30 <wallace> pfps: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon
Peter Patel-Schneider: they have high hopes to have implementations ready soon ←
07:17:40 <wallace> ivan: my only fear about this is
Ivan Herman: my only fear about this is ←
07:17:59 <wallace> ... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are
... we cannot refer to something that it too far away from the state where we are ←
07:18:20 <sandro> Boris: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int.
Boris Motik: Tools working with dateTime should preserve the structural integrity of literals, but we may not want to make too strong a statement there -- we may not want to require "01"^^xs:int not be rewritten "1"^^xs:int. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:18:29 <wallace> ... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec.
... by the time we get to Rec, we must refer to things that are at least candidate Rec. ←
07:19:18 <sandro> Sandro: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much.
Sandro Hawke: We should probably keep an AT RISK warning on xs:dateTime just in case that WG slips their schedule too much. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:19:27 <wallace> pfps: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name
Peter Patel-Schneider: we can close it, but we will still need to change the name ←
07:20:42 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:20:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:20:59 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:21:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:21:06 <wallace> +1
+1 ←
07:21:08 <bernardo> +1
07:21:19 <Zhe> 0
07:21:27 <Zakim> +Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: +Zhe ←
07:21:30 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:21:38 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:21:39 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:21:45 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:21:51 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
07:22:12 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:22:16 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-138 with an editors' note stating that we will use XSD name when they determine what it is; also note that this is at risk -- we may need to pick a new name if they don't make it to CR on time. ←
07:23:45 <wallace> ... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain
... however, the rdf construct for this does not impinge on their purview on this thus they wont complain ←
07:24:14 <wallace> ivan: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account?
Ivan Herman: Is there any specific concern that we should take into account? ←
07:24:46 <wallace> sandro: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time
Sandro Hawke: the RDF core working group was unhappy with creating internationalized strings at the time ←
07:25:13 <wallace> pfps: I don't think there will be a problem with this.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think there will be a problem with this. ←
07:26:37 <sandro> sandro: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.)
Sandro Hawke: (so basically, any awkwardness of rdf:text is due to a design circa 2002 that we can't do much about.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
07:27:53 <sandro> Topic: New Issues Affecting Core Documents
07:28:21 <sandro> subtopic: Issue-147 Add UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
07:28:57 <wallace> boris: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange
Boris Motik: we have unionOf, intersectionOf on classes but we dont have for datarange ←
07:30:51 <pfps> boris: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means
Boris Motik: we can get some of these for dataranges through other means [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:10 <wallace> boris: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer
Boris Motik: the point is you could say range of a property is string or integer ←
07:31:30 <pfps> boris: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment
Boris Motik: they are useful (e.g., <15 or >65) for age giving preferential treatment [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:31:33 <wallace> ... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much
... from a reasoning point of view things don't change very much ←
07:31:46 <wallace> ... rdf already has it
... rdf already has it ←
07:32:09 <wallace> ivan: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL
Ivan Herman: it gives more rdf graphs also expressible in DL ←
07:32:16 <pfps> boris: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection
Boris Motik: these are already in Full - because dataranges are classes and thus can participate in union/intersection [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:52 <pfps> boris: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes)
Boris Motik: reasoners have to have the facilities for this (from union/intersection for classes) [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:32:57 <wallace> boris: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there
Boris Motik: profiles can't have union of data ranges, even if it were possible I wouldn't go there ←
07:33:12 <wallace> ... this is something we would only add to the general language
... this is something we would only add to the general language ←
07:33:16 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:33:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:33:18 <IanH> Q?
Ian Horrocks: Q? ←
07:33:22 <sandro> REMOTE: Zhe
07:33:35 <schneid> m_schnei: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF
Michael Schneider: no technical issues with the RDF-Based Semantics, because datatypes / data ranges are classes in RDF [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:33:57 <wallace> bijan: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet.
Bijan Parsia: its a late addition. I generally like expressivity. There aren't any users demanding this yet. ←
07:34:16 <wallace> ... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners
... I think that its true that we know how to build prepositional reasoners ←
07:34:39 <wallace> ... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition
... my asserting that linear equations is a minor addition ←
07:34:48 <schneid> m_schnei: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full
Michael Schneider: intersections and unions of datatypes do not lead out of the class of all data values, so no problem with OWL Full [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:34:59 <wallace> ... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here
... All I want to know is if we have a uniform principal here ←
07:35:05 <schneid> m_schnei: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics
Michael Schneider: nothing would need to change in the RDF-Based Semantics [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:35:12 <sandro> RRSAgent, make records public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make records public ←
07:35:16 <wallace> boris: you can handle this at the level of tableaux
Boris Motik: you can handle this at the level of tableaux ←
07:35:39 <wallace> christine: for a user point of view it is useful, I could provide e.g.s immediately
Christine Golbreich: for a user point of view it is useful, I could provide e.g.s immediately ←
07:36:11 <wallace> schneid: there was discussion a while ago on a public list where there was a request for exactly this feature
Michael Schneider: there was discussion a while ago on a public list where there was a request for exactly this feature ←
07:36:32 <wallace> achille: Can we support it by supporting union in XSD itself?
Achille Fokoue: Can we support it by supporting union in XSD itself? ←
07:36:47 <wallace> bijan: no XSD reasoner can do what we need to do with it.
Bijan Parsia: no XSD reasoner can do what we need to do with it. ←
07:37:05 <wallace> ... you get a choice of an XSD infoset but it won't do reasoning by cases
... you get a choice of an XSD infoset but it won't do reasoning by cases ←
07:37:29 <wallace> ianh: everybodies happy with it. It seems a no brainer to add it.
Ian Horrocks: everybodies happy with it. It seems a no brainer to add it. ←
07:37:47 <wallace> bijan: we should document the thing about not reusing XSD
Bijan Parsia: we should document the thing about not reusing XSD ←
07:38:04 <wallace> ... I will put a comment on the issue page.
... I will put a comment on the issue page. ←
07:38:26 <wallace> ivan: I don't have any real issue with the proposal, but there should be a point when
Ivan Herman: I don't have any real issue with the proposal, but there should be a point when ←
07:39:13 <wallace> ... we say "feature stop". When will we say "that's it guys" ?
... we say "feature stop". When will we say "that's it guys" ? ←
07:39:37 <wallace> ivan: it's not my intention to block this one.
Ivan Herman: it's not my intention to block this one. ←
07:40:46 <wallace> subtopic: issue 148 owl:topDataProperty may invalidate Theorem
07:41:21 <wallace> boris: we were trying to issue top data property in hermit and notice a problem that
Boris Motik: we were trying to issue top data property in hermit and notice a problem that ←
07:41:33 <wallace> ... could arrive address issue 147
... could arrive address ISSUE-147 ←
07:42:12 <wallace> boris: you could fix the set of datatypes
Boris Motik: you could fix the set of datatypes ←
07:42:48 <wallace> boris: assume we don't introduce union now
Boris Motik: assume we don't introduce union now ←
07:43:13 <wallace> ... but we already have top data property so now users can define their own
... but we already have top data property so now users can define their own ←
07:44:47 <wallace> schneid: from a full point of view 148 doesn't depend on 147
Michael Schneider: from a full point of view 148 doesn't depend on 147 ←
07:45:10 <bernardo> +q
07:45:10 <wallace> ivan: for symmetry purposes don't we have something similar for top object property
Ivan Herman: for symmetry purposes don't we have something similar for top object property ←
07:45:28 <wallace> boris: no, because it is not on a concrete domain
Boris Motik: no, because it is not on a concrete domain ←
07:45:32 <pfps> boris: if you have a union of all datatypes and make that the range of topDataProperty, then you "fix" the set of datatypes
Boris Motik: if you have a union of all datatypes and make that the range of topDataProperty, then you "fix" the set of datatypes [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:45:34 <schneid> m_schnei: 148 does not depend on 147, since OWL Full allows unions of data types anyway
Michael Schneider: 148 does not depend on 147, since OWL Full allows unions of data types anyway [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
07:45:35 <IanH> PROPOSED: q?
PROPOSED: q? ←
07:45:46 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:45:53 <IanH> ack bernardo
Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo ←
07:45:59 <wallace> bernardo: its about theorem 1, which is independent from the datatype theory
Bernardo Cuenca Grau: its about theorem 1, which is independent from the datatype theory ←
07:46:06 <pfps> boris: if a later WG adds other datatypes, this then becomes inconsistent, so additions to the language can retroactively make existing ontologies inconsistent
Boris Motik: if a later WG adds other datatypes, this then becomes inconsistent, so additions to the language can retroactively make existing ontologies inconsistent [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:46:29 <bernardo> -q
07:46:37 <wallace> ... if you use a top data property you can talk about datatypes globally
... if you use a top data property you can talk about datatypes globally ←
07:47:14 <wallace> bijan: but in my tutorials I will be clear not to use these for modelling
Bijan Parsia: but in my tutorials I will be clear not to use these for modelling ←
07:47:23 <pfps> boris: this seems bad, but union seems useful - the problem can be avoided by restricting the use of topDataProperty
Boris Motik: this seems bad, but union seems useful - the problem can be avoided by restricting the use of topDataProperty [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:47:54 <wallace> ianh: there is a philosophical point were the domain for datatypes is fixed
Ian Horrocks: there is a philosophical point were the domain for datatypes is fixed ←
07:48:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:48:10 <pfps> boris: the restriction is to only allow topDataProperty as a superproperty of other axioms
Boris Motik: the restriction is to only allow topDataProperty as a superproperty of other axioms [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:48:39 <pfps> markus: if you have "extra" values, then the example is always inconsistent
Markus Krötzsch: if you have "extra" values, then the example is always inconsistent [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:49:19 <pfps> boris: you have to be very careful because you could "exhaust" the rest of the data domain, and then you get to see these extra values
Boris Motik: you have to be very careful because you could "exhaust" the rest of the data domain, and then you get to see these extra values [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
07:49:44 <wallace> bijan: to speak in favor of this: this is a more minimal restriction
Bijan Parsia: to speak in favor of this: this is a more minimal restriction ←
07:49:59 <wallace> ianh: we are pretty much on the same page
Ian Horrocks: we are pretty much on the same page ←
07:51:13 <wallace> boris: theorem 1 doesn't apply to OWL Full
Boris Motik: theorem 1 doesn't apply to OWL Full ←
07:51:55 <wallace> schneid: this problem is already in OWL Full
Michael Schneider: this problem is already in OWL Full ←
07:53:18 <wallace> ianh: we have two proposals that are linked
Ian Horrocks: we have two proposals that are linked ←
07:54:45 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties ←
07:54:49 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:54:53 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:54:55 <bernardo> +1
07:54:56 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:54:57 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:54:58 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
07:55:00 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:55:01 <bijan> +1 (Manchester or Oxford)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester or Oxford) ←
07:55:01 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
07:55:03 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:55:04 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
07:55:05 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:55:06 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:55:29 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-148 by introducing a global restriction on the use of topDataProperty so that it can only be used as a superproperty for other data properties ←
07:55:55 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges ←
07:55:58 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
07:56:00 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
07:56:03 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
07:56:05 <bijan> +1 (Manchester)
Bijan Parsia: +1 (Manchester) ←
07:56:05 <Christine> +1 (uvsq)
Christine Golbreich: +1 (uvsq) ←
07:56:08 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
07:56:08 <wallace> ewallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 ←
07:56:10 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
07:56:10 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
07:56:11 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE)
07:56:15 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
07:56:17 <bernardo> +1
07:56:42 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
07:56:46 <sandro> again :-)
Sandro Hawke: again :-) ←
07:56:56 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-147 by introducing UnionOf and IntersectionOf on Data Ranges ←
07:57:36 <Zhe> I just click +1
07:58:25 <wallace> subtopic: issue 144 Missing Base Triple in Serialization of Axioms with Annotations.
07:58:45 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is here? ←
07:58:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:58:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:58:54 <wallace> zhe: my position has not changed yet
Zhe Wu: my position has not changed yet ←
07:59:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
07:59:10 <wallace> ... oracle wants this base triple in annotation serialization
... oracle wants this base triple in annotation serialization ←
07:59:11 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
07:59:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
07:59:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see bijan, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, wallace, Zhe, trackbot ←
07:59:43 <wallace> schneid: my position has also not changed
Michael Schneider: my position has also not changed ←
07:59:55 <wallace> ... I think the base triple needs to be in the mapping
... I think the base triple needs to be in the mapping ←
08:00:36 <wallace> ... this causes copies of axioms in the functional syntax (one with and one without annotation)
... this causes copies of axioms in the functional syntax (one with and one without annotation) ←
08:00:37 <Zhe> I can only hear fragmented voice from Michael
Zhe Wu: I can only hear fragmented voice from Michael ←
08:00:46 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
08:00:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc#T08-00-46
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/10/24-owl-irc#T08-00-46 ←
08:00:52 <wallace> ... if we have rdf graph with assertions
... if we have rdf graph with assertions ←
08:01:48 <wallace> ... every tool has to reconstruct these base triples
... every tool has to reconstruct these base triples ←
08:02:34 <wallace> schneid: we should ask ourselves how would we build a ref impl for this
Michael Schneider: we should ask ourselves how would we build a ref impl for this ←
08:02:55 <wallace> boris: I would like to make this decision somehow coherent
Boris Motik: I would like to make this decision somehow coherent ←
08:03:14 <wallace> ... our story should be that the reified triples don't mean anything
... our story should be that the reified triples don't mean anything ←
08:03:42 <wallace> ... a reified version shouldn't have any consequences
... a reified version shouldn't have any consequences ←
08:04:19 <wallace> schneid: everyone has to upgrade
Michael Schneider: everyone has to upgrade ←
08:05:30 <wallace> boris: if we don't have a clear story about what these reified triples mean, it opens the door to further problems
Boris Motik: if we don't have a clear story about what these reified triples mean, it opens the door to further problems ←
08:06:12 <wallace> boris: this introduces a gap from the rdf base semantics and the OWL 2 RDF RL semantics
Boris Motik: this introduces a gap from the rdf base semantics and the OWL 2 RDF RL semantics ←
08:07:03 <wallace> ivan: what he is saying is that the mapping would ultimately put the reified triple
Ivan Herman: what he is saying is that the mapping would ultimately put the reified triple ←
08:07:25 <wallace> boris : the proposal is to get rid of table 417 from the RDF base semantics
boris : the proposal is to get rid of table 417 from the RDF base semantics ←
08:08:10 <sandro> Bijan: can we list all the downsides?
Bijan Parsia: can we list all the downsides? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:08:46 <sandro> Boris: you can't have an ontology which contains an axiom which is annotated and another which is not annotated.
Boris Motik: you can't have an ontology which contains an axiom which is annotated and another which is not annotated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:08:47 <wallace> boris: the downside is you can't have an ontology that has an axiom that is annotated and one that is not annotated
Boris Motik: the downside is you can't have an ontology that has an axiom that is annotated and one that is not annotated ←
08:08:57 <sandro> Bijan: And we bloat the size of the ontology.
Bijan Parsia: And we bloat the size of the ontology. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:08 <sandro> schneid: But this is unavoidable anyway. Given an RDF graph built in collaboration with several authors. This has to mapped and reverse mapped. So the mapping tool has the same problem, with a parallel mapping of the same axiom differently annotated.
Michael Schneider: But this is unavoidable anyway. Given an RDF graph built in collaboration with several authors. This has to mapped and reverse mapped. So the mapping tool has the same problem, with a parallel mapping of the same axiom differently annotated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:21 <sandro> Boris: Well, no, we could map them to a different blank node.
Boris Motik: Well, no, we could map them to a different blank node. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:35 <sandro> Ian: Sure, but it's okay, since we all agree.
Ian Horrocks: Sure, but it's okay, since we all agree. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:10:53 <wallace> ianh: are we ready to close the issue
Ian Horrocks: are we ready to close the issue ←
08:11:28 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple ←
08:12:13 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics ←
08:12:13 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
08:12:16 <bijan> +1
Bijan Parsia: +1 ←
08:12:17 <Zhe> +1 (ORACLE. so worth getting up early in the morning :))
Zhe Wu: +1 (ORACLE. so worth getting up early in the morning :)) ←
08:12:18 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
08:12:19 <pfps> 0
08:12:20 <bernardo> +1
08:12:24 <schneid> wallace: +1
Evan Wallace: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Michael Schneider ] ←
08:12:26 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
08:12:27 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
08:12:28 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
08:12:30 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
08:12:45 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
08:12:54 <schneid> +1 (for me either :))
Michael Schneider: +1 (for me either :)) ←
08:12:56 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
08:13:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close issue 144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-144 by agreeing that the serialisation of annotated axioms will include the base triple and removing table 4.17 from the RDF-Based semantics ←
08:14:57 <MarkusK_> scribenick: MarkusK_
(Scribe set to Markus Krötzsch)
08:15:28 <pfps> subtopic: issue 149 Some problems with OWL 2 RL
08:15:50 <MarkusK_> ivan: there are two issues here
Ivan Herman: there are two issues here ←
08:16:00 <MarkusK_> ... boris filed them as one
... boris filed them as one ←
08:16:29 <MarkusK_> ... the issue I found was that the functional syntax includes a number of built-in entities such as owl:thing, nothing, top*Property
... the issue I found was that the functional syntax includes a number of built-in entities such as owl:thing, nothing, top*Property ←
08:16:46 <MarkusK_> ... these are not present in the OWL RL rule set
... these are not present in the OWL RL rule set ←
08:17:20 <MarkusK_> ... in addition, some additional rules are needed o axiomatise those constructs in OWL RL
... in addition, some additional rules are needed o axiomatise those constructs in OWL RL ←
08:17:25 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:17:31 <MarkusK_> s / o / to /
s / o / to / ←
08:17:49 <MarkusK_> ivan: then there is another part uncovered in the discussion and addded by boris
Ivan Herman: then there is another part uncovered in the discussion and addded by boris ←
08:18:09 <MarkusK_> ... some of the required rules might generate a high number of additional triples in the store
... some of the required rules might generate a high number of additional triples in the store ←
08:18:10 <IanH> zakim, who is here?
Ian Horrocks: zakim, who is here? ←
08:18:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Riviera_B, Zhe ←
08:18:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see BlazN, FabGandon, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see BlazN, FabGandon, Achille, schneid, sandro, Christine, Rinke, IanH, pfps, ivan, bmotik, bernardo, MarkusK_, RRSAgent, Zakim, Zhe, trackbot ←
08:18:23 <MarkusK_> ... we had a long discussion whether this is good or bad from a user's viewpoint
... we had a long discussion whether this is good or bad from a user's viewpoint ←
08:18:41 <MarkusK_> ... would an average user care about the top properties and classes or not?
... would an average user care about the top properties and classes or not? ←
08:18:56 <MarkusK_> ... boris had goodexamples where it seemd useful but hte price might still be too large
... boris had goodexamples where it seemd useful but hte price might still be too large ←
08:19:03 <MarkusK_> ian: any suggestions for resolving this?
Ian Horrocks: any suggestions for resolving this? ←
08:19:03 <Zhe> q+
08:19:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:19:15 <MarkusK_> ivan: I would like to hear the oppinion of implementors
Ivan Herman: I would like to hear the oppinion of implementors ←
08:19:19 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
08:19:41 <MarkusK_> zhe: I am not in favour of adding all those triples for top properties and objects
Zhe Wu: I am not in favour of adding all those triples for top properties and objects ←
08:20:13 <MarkusK_> ... these rules are not needed to figure out that certain sub-class and sub-property axioms hold
... these rules are not needed to figure out that certain sub-class and sub-property axioms hold ←
08:20:17 <sandro> present-= Wallace
Sandro Hawke: present-= Wallace ←
08:20:21 <sandro> present-= Bijan
Sandro Hawke: present-= Bijan ←
08:20:42 <MarkusK_> zhe: in my oppinion, the rule set needs not to be complete in this respect
Zhe Wu: in my oppinion, the rule set needs not to be complete in this respect ←
08:21:20 <MarkusK_> boris: precisely because it is indeed easy to find out whether something is an instance of owl:thing
Boris Motik: precisely because it is indeed easy to find out whether something is an instance of owl:thing ←
08:21:30 <MarkusK_> ... implementations can have smart optimisations for dealing with them
... implementations can have smart optimisations for dealing with them ←
08:21:43 <MarkusK_> ... it would not be required to literally materialise all the triples for those cases
... it would not be required to literally materialise all the triples for those cases ←
08:22:03 <MarkusK_> ... and such optimisations will be required anyway for good implementations of OWL RL
... and such optimisations will be required anyway for good implementations of OWL RL ←
08:23:00 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:23:01 <MarkusK_> schneid: there are other entailments that I would not want to materialise, and there seem to be many applications where one would not want to materialise everything with forward-chaining
Michael Schneider: there are other entailments that I would not want to materialise, and there seem to be many applications where one would not want to materialise everything with forward-chaining ←
08:23:07 <MarkusK_> ... this is a mess even in RDFS
... this is a mess even in RDFS ←
08:23:25 <MarkusK_> boris: indeed, you cnanot even implement RDFS in this way.
Boris Motik: indeed, you cnanot even implement RDFS in this way. ←
08:23:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:23:39 <MarkusK_> pfps: Theorem 1 would be broken when not having the additional rules
Peter Patel-Schneider: Theorem 1 would be broken when not having the additional rules ←
08:24:06 <MarkusK_> ivan: I agree with all of these considerations
Ivan Herman: I agree with all of these considerations ←
08:24:10 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:24:26 <MarkusK_> ... but it would be required to clarify some of those editorially in the document for OLW RL
... but it would be required to clarify some of those editorially in the document for OLW RL ←
08:24:31 <MarkusK_> s /OLW/OWL/
s /OLW/OWL/ ←
08:25:28 <MarkusK_> ... specific comments should be added regarding the implementation, in particular for existing environments where SPARQL is used for querying
... specific comments should be added regarding the implementation, in particular for existing environments where SPARQL is used for querying ←
08:25:56 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:26:02 <MarkusK_> ... such implementations would require modifications of the SPARQL querying to work for OWL RL when not materialising everything
... such implementations would require modifications of the SPARQL querying to work for OWL RL when not materialising everything ←
08:26:23 <MarkusK_> boris: I do not think that you need to change SPARQL engines to cope with OWL RL
Boris Motik: I do not think that you need to change SPARQL engines to cope with OWL RL ←
08:26:38 <MarkusK_> ... reqritting the query in a small layer on to p if the store could suffice
... reqritting the query in a small layer on to p if the store could suffice ←
08:26:48 <MarkusK_> s /reqritting/rewriting/
s /reqritting/rewriting/ ←
08:27:41 <MarkusK_> boris: the rules we are discussing would go to Table 9, which are not relevant for Theorem 1 to hold anyway
Boris Motik: the rules we are discussing would go to Table 9, which are not relevant for Theorem 1 to hold anyway ←
08:28:33 <MarkusK_> ... Table 9 defines the semantics of subclassOf and subpropertyOf
... Table 9 defines the semantics of subclassOf and subpropertyOf ←
08:28:57 <MarkusK_> ... the rules placing owl:thin/nothing and the top/bottom properties in the hierarchy would go there
... the rules placing owl:thin/nothing and the top/bottom properties in the hierarchy would go there ←
08:29:34 <MarkusK_> ... The rules for saying that bottom class/bottom should be empty should go in a new table, not Table 9
... The rules for saying that bottom class/bottom should be empty should go in a new table, not Table 9 ←
08:29:39 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:30:01 <MarkusK_> ... the only possibly probalmatic rule seems to be the rules stating that every individual is an instance of owl:thing
... the only possibly probalmatic rule seems to be the rules stating that every individual is an instance of owl:thing ←
08:30:12 <MarkusK_> ivan: there might be gurther rules that are problematic
Ivan Herman: there might be gurther rules that are problematic ←
08:30:16 <Zhe> q+
08:30:41 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:30:58 <MarkusK_> michael: the rule that everything is in owl:thing is already a rule in RDFS
Michael Schneider: the rule that everything is in owl:thing is already a rule in RDFS ←
08:31:05 <IanH> ack zhe
Ian Horrocks: ack zhe ←
08:31:08 <MarkusK_> ivan: indeed, but it is not here yet
Ivan Herman: indeed, but it is not here yet ←
08:31:08 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:31:34 <MarkusK_> zhe: Pefps mentioned that not having those rules would break Theorem 1. Can you explain?
Zhe Wu: Pefps mentioned that not having those rules would break Theorem 1. Can you explain? ←
08:32:24 <pfps> example of the problem -
Peter Patel-Schneider: example of the problem - ←
08:32:25 <MarkusK_> boris: yes, a simple entailment like that a particular instance is in owl_thing is not implied by OWL RL
Boris Motik: yes, a simple entailment like that a particular instance is in owl_thing is not implied by OWL RL ←
08:32:34 <pfps> - ontology - individual a is in class C
Peter Patel-Schneider: - ontology - individual a is in class C ←
08:32:43 <pfps> - query - is a in owl:Thing
Peter Patel-Schneider: - query - is a in owl:Thing ←
08:32:57 <pfps> - this is true in OWL (all forms) but doesn't follow from the OWL RL rules
Peter Patel-Schneider: - this is true in OWL (all forms) but doesn't follow from the OWL RL rules ←
08:33:08 <pfps> - therefore Theorem 1 in Profiles is incorrect
Peter Patel-Schneider: - therefore Theorem 1 in Profiles is incorrect ←
08:33:16 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:33:32 <MarkusK_> boris: you would want to reason with a statement like
Boris Motik: you would want to reason with a statement like ←
08:33:35 <MarkusK_> ... SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent )
... SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) ←
08:33:57 <MarkusK_> ... you cannot do that if you cannot infer that the child is necessarily in owl:thing
... you cannot do that if you cannot infer that the child is necessarily in owl:thing ←
08:34:51 <MarkusK_> ian: a proposal for resolution could be to add the rules to the tables and insert a subsection explaining that complete materialisation of all triples is not a good implementation method
Ian Horrocks: a proposal for resolution could be to add the rules to the tables and insert a subsection explaining that complete materialisation of all triples is not a good implementation method ←
08:34:54 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
08:35:31 <MarkusK_> ivan: yes, many entailment questions could be answered without looking up the triple store
Ivan Herman: yes, many entailment questions could be answered without looking up the triple store ←
08:35:52 <MarkusK_> ian: anyone not hapy with the current proposal?
Ian Horrocks: anyone not hapy with the current proposal? ←
08:36:07 <MarkusK_> zhe: I think I am okay with this
Zhe Wu: I think I am okay with this ←
08:36:25 <MarkusK_> ... we already have to cope with some similar issues
... we already have to cope with some similar issues ←
08:36:57 <MarkusK_> ian: in a way it would then be good to have the additional explaining subsection in the document
Ian Horrocks: in a way it would then be good to have the additional explaining subsection in the document ←
08:37:18 <MarkusK_> boris: the second part of the issue was that axioms like SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) are not currently allowed
Boris Motik: the second part of the issue was that axioms like SubClassOf( SomeValuesFrom( a:hasChild owl:Thing ) a:Parent ) are not currently allowed ←
08:37:39 <MarkusK_> ... this appears to be a simple bug, since owl:thing could well be allowed on the left-hand side of axioms
... this appears to be a simple bug, since owl:thing could well be allowed on the left-hand side of axioms ←
08:38:02 <MarkusK_> zhe: does this discussion also apply to the top property, or just to owl thing?
Zhe Wu: does this discussion also apply to the top property, or just to owl thing? ←
08:38:50 <MarkusK_> boris: top/bottom data property are currently not allowed, so they could be left out of the rule set
Boris Motik: top/bottom data property are currently not allowed, so they could be left out of the rule set ←
08:39:22 <MarkusK_> michael: can you explain again why the above example axiom is not allowed?
Michael Schneider: can you explain again why the above example axiom is not allowed? ←
08:39:44 <MarkusK_> boris: because the grammar disallows owl:thing, a simple grammar bug (other class names would be allowed)
Boris Motik: because the grammar disallows owl:thing, a simple grammar bug (other class names would be allowed) ←
08:39:47 <Zhe> great
08:40:19 <MarkusK_> boris: the resolution includes only owl thing and owl nothing, but none of the top/bottom properties, which are not allowed in OWL RL
Boris Motik: the resolution includes only owl thing and owl nothing, but none of the top/bottom properties, which are not allowed in OWL RL ←
08:40:30 <MarkusK_> ivan: weren't there other constructs as well?
Ivan Herman: weren't there other constructs as well? ←
08:40:38 <MarkusK_> boris: I do not think so
Boris Motik: I do not think so ←
08:41:41 <MarkusK_> ivan: declaration of annotation properties also needs to be in
Ivan Herman: declaration of annotation properties also needs to be in ←
08:41:54 <IanH> PROPOSAL: Close Issue 149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms. ←
08:41:59 <MarkusK_> boris: right but those are not problematic
Boris Motik: right but those are not problematic ←
08:42:15 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
08:42:18 <bernardo> +1
08:42:19 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
08:42:21 <MarkusK_> markus: +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
08:42:23 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
08:42:25 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
08:42:27 <IanH> +1 (Oxford)
Ian Horrocks: +1 (Oxford) ←
08:42:29 <Christine> +1
Christine Golbreich: +1 ←
08:42:34 <Achille> +1
Achille Fokoue: +1 ←
08:42:41 <Zhe> +1 (Oracle)
08:42:53 <schneid> +1
Michael Schneider: +1 ←
08:42:56 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
08:43:09 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close Issue 149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-149 by adding rules that axiomatise built-in entities (Thing, Nothing, etc) along with a new subsection that discusses how implementations could be optimised to deal with rules that potentially introduce large numbers of triples; AND fix the profile specification to allow the usage of SomeValuesFrom( R owl:Thing) on the left-hand side of the axioms. ←
08:43:40 <MarkusK_> Coffee break
Coffee break ←
08:55:19 <Zhe> zakim, mute me
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
08:55:19 <Zakim> Zhe should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Zhe should now be muted ←
09:17:27 <sandro> scribe: bernardo
(No events recorded for 22 minutes)
(Scribe set to Bernardo Cuenca Grau)
09:17:34 <bernardo> Issue 137
09:18:04 <sandro> issue-137?
09:18:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 -- OPEN ←
09:18:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137 ←
09:18:23 <bernardo> alanr: first question concerns backwards compatibility
Alan Ruttenberg: first question concerns backwards compatibility ←
09:18:23 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-137 -- Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1
09:18:41 <bernardo> alanr: in OWL 1 validity is defined over the transitive closure over imports
Alan Ruttenberg: in OWL 1 validity is defined over the transitive closure over imports ←
09:20:17 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:20:49 <bernardo> alanr: in Table 5 in the RDF mapping, There can be left over triples when using imports
Alan Ruttenberg: in Table 5 in the RDF mapping, There can be left over triples when using imports ←
09:21:15 <bernardo> alanr: second question concerns repairs
Alan Ruttenberg: second question concerns repairs ←
09:21:36 <bernardo> alanr: repairs in the presence of imports
Alan Ruttenberg: repairs in the presence of imports ←
09:21:50 <bernardo> alanr: there is a proposal I made
Alan Ruttenberg: there is a proposal I made ←
09:22:27 <bernardo> alanr: Peter had an alternative proposal that would allow you to import the missing triples using XML include
Alan Ruttenberg: Peter had an alternative proposal that would allow you to import the missing triples using XML include ←
09:22:35 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:22:51 <bernardo> bmotik: alan was referring to validity syntactically
Boris Motik: alan was referring to validity syntactically ←
09:23:25 <bernardo> bmotik: In the OWL 1 spec there is no reference to imports in connection to this issue
Boris Motik: In the OWL 1 spec there is no reference to imports in connection to this issue ←
09:23:48 <bernardo> bmotik: in OWL 1 it is not clear whether you have to put all the imported ontologies to do the parsing
Boris Motik: in OWL 1 it is not clear whether you have to put all the imported ontologies to do the parsing ←
09:24:03 <sandro> Boris: It seems to me that it's not clear in OWL 1 whether you need to do imports (smooshing them together) first or not.
Boris Motik: It seems to me that it's not clear in OWL 1 whether you need to do imports (smooshing them together) first or not. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:24:30 <bernardo> bmotik: it could be perfectly on a document to document basis
Boris Motik: it could be perfectly on a document to document basis ←
09:24:50 <bernardo> IanH: there is a debate whether there is a backwards compatibility issue
Ian Horrocks: there is a debate whether there is a backwards compatibility issue ←
09:25:01 <sandro> Ian: There's some debate about whether there's a Backward Compatibility concern for now, but aside from that, what would you want to do?
Ian Horrocks: There's some debate about whether there's a Backward Compatibility concern for now, but aside from that, what would you want to do? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:25:29 <bernardo> alanr: making the changes I suggest would make the language better, independently of backwards compatibility
Alan Ruttenberg: making the changes I suggest would make the language better, independently of backwards compatibility ←
09:25:55 <bernardo> alanr: by specifying an extra repair mechanism we can fix some situations
Alan Ruttenberg: by specifying an extra repair mechanism we can fix some situations ←
09:25:56 <sandro> Alan: Right -- I think it would be better for the language to do what I want (take the imports-closure view). It lets us use RDF correctly as OWL DL.
Alan Ruttenberg: Right -- I think it would be better for the language to do what I want (take the imports-closure view). It lets us use RDF correctly as OWL DL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:26:07 <bernardo> alanr: there are two proposals
Alan Ruttenberg: there are two proposals ←
09:26:25 <bernardo> alanr: we should not depend on XML
Alan Ruttenberg: we should not depend on XML ←
09:26:35 <sandro> fix 1 == some kind of include mechanism
Sandro Hawke: fix 1 == some kind of include mechanism ←
09:26:55 <bernardo> alanr: two options: some kind of include mechanism and the other would be to remove some triples in the reverse RDF mapping
Alan Ruttenberg: two options: some kind of include mechanism and the other would be to remove some triples in the reverse RDF mapping ←
09:26:59 <sandro> fix 2 == in the reverse dropping mapping, drop the rdfs class triples, since that leaves the "typing" to the OWL side of things.
Sandro Hawke: fix 2 == in the reverse dropping mapping, drop the rdfs class triples, since that leaves the "typing" to the OWL side of things. ←
09:28:39 <bernardo> alanr: in Table 5, see second line. Throw away all the rdf typing when there is a DL counterpart
Alan Ruttenberg: in Table 5, see second line. Throw away all the rdf typing when there is a DL counterpart ←
09:29:02 <bernardo> bmotik: if we throw these away we are unsound
Boris Motik: if we throw these away we are unsound ←
09:30:02 <bernardo> peter: suppose A imports B. Ontology A. We may end up with no triple that states that C, for example, is a class
Peter Patel-Schneider: suppose A imports B. Ontology A. We may end up with no triple that states that C, for example, is a class ←
09:30:15 <bernardo> bmotik: we may have problems defining the vocabulary
Boris Motik: we may have problems defining the vocabulary ←
09:30:28 <bernardo> bmotik: Classes have to be declared
Boris Motik: Classes have to be declared ←
09:30:50 <bernardo> bmotik: otherwise we cannot distinguish classes from datatypes
Boris Motik: otherwise we cannot distinguish classes from datatypes ←
09:31:46 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 imports O2
Boris Motik: O1 imports O2 ←
09:32:09 <bernardo> bmotik: in O2 we have C rdf:type rdfs:Class
Boris Motik: in O2 we have C rdf:type rdfs:Class ←
09:33:14 <bernardo> bmotik: D someValuesFrom C, D onProperty P
Boris Motik: D someValuesFrom C, D onProperty P ←
09:33:56 <bernardo> If we throw the type of C, parsing fails
If we throw the type of C, parsing fails ←
09:34:11 <bernardo> alanr: we can add a new ontology
Alan Ruttenberg: we can add a new ontology ←
09:34:21 <bernardo> O3, which is imported by O1
O3, which is imported by O1 ←
09:34:44 <bernardo> O3 saying C rdf:type owl:Class
O3 saying C rdf:type owl:Class ←
09:35:09 <bernardo> bmotik: parsing would still fails
Boris Motik: parsing would still fails ←
09:35:35 <bernardo> bmotik: because each ontology in the import closure should be an OWL ontology by itself
Boris Motik: because each ontology in the import closure should be an OWL ontology by itself ←
09:36:20 <bernardo> alanr: what if O1 and O3 import each other?
Alan Ruttenberg: what if O1 and O3 import each other? ←
09:36:32 <bernardo> bmotik: it would still fail
Boris Motik: it would still fail ←
09:36:48 <bernardo> bmotik: you would need an import between O2 and O3
Boris Motik: you would need an import between O2 and O3 ←
09:37:00 <bernardo> bmotik: then what alan proposes would help
Boris Motik: then what alan proposes would help ←
09:37:28 <bernardo> alanr: if this is the case, I am not getting the design, but I would object such design
Alan Ruttenberg: if this is the case, I am not getting the design, but I would object such design ←
09:38:34 <bernardo> peter: the triple C rdf:type rdf:Class is invalid OWL 2, because C should be an owl:Class
Peter Patel-Schneider: the triple C rdf:type rdf:Class is invalid OWL 2, because C should be an owl:Class ←
09:39:40 <bernardo> IanH: alan had a proposal to resolve and there was an objection that one of those did not work
Ian Horrocks: alan had a proposal to resolve and there was an objection that one of those did not work ←
09:40:01 <bernardo> alanr: yes, there was a misunderstanding and therefore I have another objection
Alan Ruttenberg: yes, there was a misunderstanding and therefore I have another objection ←
09:40:45 <bernardo> bmotik: the second solution would work
Boris Motik: the second solution would work ←
09:41:00 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 imports O2
Boris Motik: O1 imports O2 ←
09:41:20 <bernardo> with O2 containing only C rdf:type rdf:Class
with O2 containing only C rdf:type rdf:Class ←
09:41:37 <bernardo> bmotik: we want to make O2 valid
Boris Motik: we want to make O2 valid ←
09:42:05 <bernardo> bmotik: there is a third ontology O3 which is a repair
Boris Motik: there is a third ontology O3 which is a repair ←
09:42:24 <bernardo> bmotik: where we would have C rdf:type owl:Class
Boris Motik: where we would have C rdf:type owl:Class ←
09:42:35 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 is not an ontology is a document
Boris Motik: O2 is not an ontology is a document ←
09:42:44 <bernardo> bmotik: O3 is an actual ontology
Boris Motik: O3 is an actual ontology ←
09:42:52 <bernardo> alanr: I am happy with this
Alan Ruttenberg: I am happy with this ←
09:43:04 <bernardo> IanH: should this be a proposal to resolve?
Ian Horrocks: should this be a proposal to resolve? ←
09:43:19 <bernardo> peter: the remaining problem is to define the inclusion mechanism
Peter Patel-Schneider: the remaining problem is to define the inclusion mechanism ←
09:43:26 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
09:43:47 <bernardo> bmotik: in the structural spec the inclusions should not be represented
Boris Motik: in the structural spec the inclusions should not be represented ←
09:44:08 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 and O3 should be an ontology during parsing
Boris Motik: O2 and O3 should be an ontology during parsing ←
09:44:19 <bernardo> bmotik: include should be something that happens in RDF
Boris Motik: include should be something that happens in RDF ←
09:45:12 <bernardo> ivan: tools should keep track of the provenance of the triples
Ivan Herman: tools should keep track of the provenance of the triples ←
09:45:35 <bernardo> bmotik: this is something that only concerns the RDF
Boris Motik: this is something that only concerns the RDF ←
09:45:56 <bernardo> IanH: if we did this using XML include in RDF/XML
Ian Horrocks: if we did this using XML include in RDF/XML ←
09:46:14 <bernardo> ivan: formally yes, but there is no RDF environment that supports this
Ivan Herman: formally yes, but there is no RDF environment that supports this ←
09:46:49 <bernardo> mschneider: using an XML mechanism looks like a bit step
Michael Schneider: using an XML mechanism looks like a bit step ←
09:47:10 <bernardo> IanH: what if we define our own inclusion mechanism?
Ian Horrocks: what if we define our own inclusion mechanism? ←
09:47:20 <bernardo> mschneider: is it worth it?
Michael Schneider: is it worth it? ←
09:48:02 <bernardo> ivan: if we generate our own mechanism we would end up in an unconfortable situation
Ivan Herman: if we generate our own mechanism we would end up in an unconfortable situation ←
09:48:24 <bernardo> ivan: it is doable, but not easy
Ivan Herman: it is doable, but not easy ←
09:48:50 <bernardo> bmotik: sing XML includes we could say something like ``tools should support XML include''
Boris Motik: sing XML includes we could say something like ``tools should support XML include'' ←
09:49:06 <bernardo> ivan: in practice it will not be supported
Ivan Herman: in practice it will not be supported ←
09:49:43 <bernardo> alanr: this is an OWL specific problem. There is no need in RDF to do an XML inclusion
Alan Ruttenberg: this is an OWL specific problem. There is no need in RDF to do an XML inclusion ←
09:49:51 <bernardo> alanr: it is more a processing change
Alan Ruttenberg: it is more a processing change ←
09:49:57 <bernardo> alanr: it is a big win
Alan Ruttenberg: it is a big win ←
09:50:49 <bernardo> mschneider: this is kind of a border case
Michael Schneider: this is kind of a border case ←
09:51:15 <bernardo> mschneider: it doesn't seem worthy to add XML inclusion for filling a small gap
Michael Schneider: it doesn't seem worthy to add XML inclusion for filling a small gap ←
09:51:27 <bernardo> peter: an inclusion mechanism is a need in RDF
Peter Patel-Schneider: an inclusion mechanism is a need in RDF ←
09:51:35 <bernardo> alanr: I disagree
Alan Ruttenberg: I disagree ←
09:52:14 <bernardo> alanr: it is not a corner case. It is a way to repair lots of RDF that so far was not valid OWL
Alan Ruttenberg: it is not a corner case. It is a way to repair lots of RDF that so far was not valid OWL ←
09:52:39 <sandro> alan: We're aiming to allow a lot of off-the-shelf RDF to be usable in OWL DL. This is something very useful.
Alan Ruttenberg: We're aiming to allow a lot of off-the-shelf RDF to be usable in OWL DL. This is something very useful. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:52:40 <bernardo> bmotik: RDF does not handle the notion of a document
Boris Motik: RDF does not handle the notion of a document ←
09:52:57 <bernardo> bmotik: otherwise it is unclear what I am reasoning on
Boris Motik: otherwise it is unclear what I am reasoning on ←
09:53:51 <bernardo> alanr: our issue here is to have a mechanism to bring lots of RDF mechanism into the OWL world
Alan Ruttenberg: our issue here is to have a mechanism to bring lots of RDF mechanism into the OWL world ←
09:54:09 <bernardo> ivan: my feeling is that your proposal needs more thinking
Ivan Herman: my feeling is that your proposal needs more thinking ←
09:54:31 <bernardo> ivan: the consequences are unclear
Ivan Herman: the consequences are unclear ←
09:56:32 <bernardo> mschneider: It is a big change late in the process
Michael Schneider: It is a big change late in the process ←
09:57:41 <bernardo> alanr: this has been going on for a while
Alan Ruttenberg: this has been going on for a while ←
09:58:13 <bernardo> mschneider: it will confuse people
Michael Schneider: it will confuse people ←
09:59:02 <bernardo> alanr: my preference is that the declarations are checked over the import closure
Alan Ruttenberg: my preference is that the declarations are checked over the import closure ←
09:59:12 <bernardo> alanr: Peter proposed another mechanism
Alan Ruttenberg: Peter proposed another mechanism ←
09:59:29 <bernardo> alanr: I am happy with any mechanism that fixes the problem
Alan Ruttenberg: I am happy with any mechanism that fixes the problem ←
10:00:01 <bernardo> IanH: Strawpol
Ian Horrocks: Strawpol ←
10:01:29 <bernardo> ivan: today we could identify the problem
Ivan Herman: today we could identify the problem ←
10:02:00 <bernardo> ivan: then the only solution that currently exists is a serialization-specific mechanism
Ivan Herman: then the only solution that currently exists is a serialization-specific mechanism ←
10:02:16 <bernardo> ivan: this is an issue that RDF COre should handle
Ivan Herman: this is an issue that RDF COre should handle ←
10:02:58 <bernardo> alanr: there is another proposal on the table
Alan Ruttenberg: there is another proposal on the table ←
10:03:18 <bernardo> alanr: I think that the declarations should be evaluated over the imports closure
Alan Ruttenberg: I think that the declarations should be evaluated over the imports closure ←
10:03:30 <bernardo> bmotik: alan's proposal is ill-defined
Boris Motik: alan's proposal is ill-defined ←
10:03:57 <bernardo> bmotik: it would require a big change in the mapping
Boris Motik: it would require a big change in the mapping ←
10:04:24 <bernardo> ivan: I do not understand what is the problem with the declarations over the closure
Ivan Herman: I do not understand what is the problem with the declarations over the closure ←
10:04:39 <bernardo> bmotik: some of the documents in the closure may not be actual ontology
Boris Motik: some of the documents in the closure may not be actual ontology ←
10:04:57 <bernardo> bmotik: some of the imported ontologies may be nothing
Boris Motik: some of the imported ontologies may be nothing ←
10:06:12 <bernardo> alanr: the only problem is that you down move the declarations down from the importing to the imported ontology
Alan Ruttenberg: the only problem is that you down move the declarations down from the importing to the imported ontology ←
10:06:52 <bernardo> bmotik: Suppose O1 having C rdf:type rdfs:Class
Boris Motik: Suppose O1 having C rdf:type rdfs:Class ←
10:07:00 <bernardo> and O2 and O3 import O1
and O2 and O3 import O1 ←
10:07:25 <bernardo> bmotik: O2 has C rdf:type owl:Class
Boris Motik: O2 has C rdf:type owl:Class ←
10:07:53 <bernardo> bmotik: O1 is not currently and OWL ontology because parsing it would break
Boris Motik: O1 is not currently and OWL ontology because parsing it would break ←
10:08:36 <bernardo> ivan: it is not clear that they have to be ontologies by themselves
Ivan Herman: it is not clear that they have to be ontologies by themselves ←
10:08:59 <bernardo> bmotik: this is how people do it
Boris Motik: this is how people do it ←
10:09:34 <bernardo> ivan: I am not convinced
Ivan Herman: I am not convinced ←
10:09:52 <bernardo> ivan: imagine modularizing an ontology
Ivan Herman: imagine modularizing an ontology ←
10:10:05 <bernardo> ivan: what I care about is that the whole thing is an ontology
Ivan Herman: what I care about is that the whole thing is an ontology ←
10:10:28 <bernardo> ivan: it is not necessary that each of the pieces is a consistent ontology by itself
Ivan Herman: it is not necessary that each of the pieces is a consistent ontology by itself ←
10:11:39 <bernardo> alan gives example
alan gives example ←
10:12:51 <bernardo> peter: the ideal situation is that a document together with the stuff it imports is an actual OWL ontology
Peter Patel-Schneider: the ideal situation is that a document together with the stuff it imports is an actual OWL ontology ←
10:13:25 <bernardo> alan: this doesn't matter in practice
Alan Ruttenberg: this doesn't matter in practice ←
10:13:53 <bernardo> sandro: is there an engineering argument against alan's proposal?
Sandro Hawke: is there an engineering argument against alan's proposal? ←
10:14:12 <bernardo> IanH: we now have two proposals.
Ian Horrocks: we now have two proposals. ←
10:14:54 <bernardo> IanH: proposal is to change the specification to gather declarations over the imports closure (alan's proposal)
Ian Horrocks: proposal is to change the specification to gather declarations over the imports closure (alan's proposal) ←
10:17:05 <bernardo> mschneider makes a summary of the proposals
mschneider makes a summary of the proposals ←
10:18:05 <bernardo> ivan: I haven't heard anything convincing about the fact that each piece should be an ontology by itself
Ivan Herman: I haven't heard anything convincing about the fact that each piece should be an ontology by itself ←
10:18:28 <bernardo> bmotik: when you are writing an editoe, you want to have a clear idea of what an ontology object is
Boris Motik: when you are writing an editoe, you want to have a clear idea of what an ontology object is ←
10:19:13 <bernardo> bmotik: also, we can have ontologies stored in databases and we have to make sure that they are valid OWL
Boris Motik: also, we can have ontologies stored in databases and we have to make sure that they are valid OWL ←
10:19:38 <bernardo> bmotik: in OWL 1 it was not clear how to parse an ontology
Boris Motik: in OWL 1 it was not clear how to parse an ontology ←
10:20:02 <bernardo> bmotik: we could end up importing something that is not an RDF file
Boris Motik: we could end up importing something that is not an RDF file ←
10:20:55 <bernardo> bmotik: in an API you want to work with ontologies, not with arbitrary documents. All tools work like that
Boris Motik: in an API you want to work with ontologies, not with arbitrary documents. All tools work like that ←
10:21:33 <bernardo> achille: it seems that the spec already forces you to look ar declarations in the import closure
Achille Fokoue: it seems that the spec already forces you to look ar declarations in the import closure ←
10:22:08 <bernardo> IanH: we are only considering the imports, not the inverse of it
Ian Horrocks: we are only considering the imports, not the inverse of it ←
10:23:55 <bernardo> ivan: are you afraid of ``diamod-shaped'' import path?
Ivan Herman: are you afraid of ``diamod-shaped'' import path? ←
10:24:03 <bernardo> bmotik: that is partly
Boris Motik: that is partly ←
10:25:23 <bernardo> bmotik: in the functional syntax it is possible to write documents that are not ontologies
Boris Motik: in the functional syntax it is possible to write documents that are not ontologies ←
10:27:00 <bernardo> +q
+q ←
10:28:51 <bernardo> boris stands up and draws picture
boris stands up and draws picture ←
10:29:15 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:30:27 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:30:38 <IanH> ack bernardo
Ian Horrocks: ack bernardo ←
10:32:20 <bernardo> alanr: we could distinguish between OWL ontologies and documents and allow import to work also on documents and not only on ontologies
Alan Ruttenberg: we could distinguish between OWL ontologies and documents and allow import to work also on documents and not only on ontologies ←
10:33:14 <bernardo> bmotik: in APIs the term ontology always has denoted something that is self consistent
Boris Motik: in APIs the term ontology always has denoted something that is self consistent ←
10:33:28 <bernardo> bmotik: we need two logical relationships between documents
Boris Motik: we need two logical relationships between documents ←
10:33:39 <bernardo> bmotik: one is imports which works on ontologies
Boris Motik: one is imports which works on ontologies ←
10:34:00 <alanr> Assumption => "Self consistent thing" is a single document
Alan Ruttenberg: Assumption => "Self consistent thing" is a single document ←
10:34:09 <bernardo> bmotik: then, another relationship between documents that works similarly to XML includes
Boris Motik: then, another relationship between documents that works similarly to XML includes ←
10:35:17 <bernardo> IanH: we are doing some sort of ``repair''
Ian Horrocks: we are doing some sort of ``repair'' ←
10:36:13 <bernardo> IanH: wouldn't it be possible to have this in the spec as a note to implementors?
Ian Horrocks: wouldn't it be possible to have this in the spec as a note to implementors? ←
10:36:36 <sandro> Alan: Many people think of an "Ontology" as something that is expressed in multiple "Documents". Not just this "ontology"=="document" view.
Alan Ruttenberg: Many people think of an "Ontology" as something that is expressed in multiple "Documents". Not just this "ontology"=="document" view. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:37:16 <bernardo> bmotik: we need to agree on the meaning of the term ontology
Boris Motik: we need to agree on the meaning of the term ontology ←
10:37:51 <bernardo> bmotik: we shoueld say that an ontology is something that can be parsed correctly
Boris Motik: we shoueld say that an ontology is something that can be parsed correctly ←
10:38:59 <bernardo> bmotik: Proposal: having an explicit include relation that works on documents, not necessarily on ontologies
Boris Motik: Proposal: having an explicit include relation that works on documents, not necessarily on ontologies ←
10:39:43 <bernardo> bmotik: another option would be to overload the meaning of imports
Boris Motik: another option would be to overload the meaning of imports ←
10:41:14 <bernardo> mschneider: I dont believe that the spec does not demand that an ontology in functional syntax is actually an ontology
Michael Schneider: I dont believe that the spec does not demand that an ontology in functional syntax is actually an ontology ←
10:41:41 <pfps> Boris has made a proposal that owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header acts like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping
Peter Patel-Schneider: Boris has made a proposal that owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header acts like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping ←
10:42:40 <bernardo> alanr: we should make a distinction of names between ontology documents and other things
Alan Ruttenberg: we should make a distinction of names between ontology documents and other things ←
10:43:14 <IanH> q?
Ian Horrocks: q? ←
10:43:35 <bernardo> bmotik: according to the structural spec, an ontology is currently something that contains axioms and that imports other ontologies
Boris Motik: according to the structural spec, an ontology is currently something that contains axioms and that imports other ontologies ←
10:45:59 <bernardo> ivan: we are back to the same idea of inclusion
Ivan Herman: we are back to the same idea of inclusion ←
10:47:47 <sandro> MarkusK: I like this: Yes, an Ontology is an abstract thing, a set of axioms.
Markus Krötzsch: I like this: Yes, an Ontology is an abstract thing, a set of axioms. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:47:50 <pfps> markus: agree with Boris - ontology is an abstract object (axioms+imports) - relationship to documents is then needed only for imports
Markus Krötzsch: agree with Boris - ontology is an abstract object (axioms+imports) - relationship to documents is then needed only for imports [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
10:48:21 <bernardo> alanr: I support Marku's point of view
Alan Ruttenberg: I support Marku's point of view ←
10:48:47 <bernardo> alanr: I think of an ontology as the document plus everything it imports
Alan Ruttenberg: I think of an ontology as the document plus everything it imports ←
10:51:14 <bernardo> ivan: what about the database example boris mentioned?
Ivan Herman: what about the database example boris mentioned? ←
10:53:27 <bernardo> markus: what happens with document transformation?
Markus Krötzsch: what happens with document transformation? ←
10:54:05 <bernardo> bmotik: everything that complies with the structural spec must be an OWL ontology
Boris Motik: everything that complies with the structural spec must be an OWL ontology ←
10:55:02 <MarkusK_> markus: so "syntactic" imports, only supported in RDF syntaxes, are resolved first, and the result can then be transformed to other syntaxes
Markus Krötzsch: so "syntactic" imports, only supported in RDF syntaxes, are resolved first, and the result can then be transformed to other syntaxes [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
10:55:06 <MarkusK_> bmotik: yes
Boris Motik: yes [ Scribe Assist by Markus Krötzsch ] ←
10:55:20 <IanH> PROPOSED: Close Issue 137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping. ←
10:55:23 <bmotik> +1
Boris Motik: +1 ←
10:55:29 <bernardo> +1
+1 ←
10:55:32 <pfps> +1 (ALU)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 (ALU) ←
10:55:38 <MarkusK_> +1
Markus Krötzsch: +1 ←
10:55:41 <IanH> 0
Ian Horrocks: 0 ←
10:55:45 <Zhe> 0
10:55:49 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
10:55:54 <Rinke> +1
Rinke Hoekstra: +1 ←
10:56:03 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
10:56:13 <Achille> +1 (IBM)
Achille Fokoue: +1 (IBM) ←
10:56:32 <alanr> +1 (Science Commons)
Alan Ruttenberg: +1 (Science Commons) ←
10:56:55 <alanr> Alan is impressed with Zhe's presence
Alan Ruttenberg: Alan is impressed with Zhe's presence ←
10:57:03 <Christine> 0
10:57:15 <schneid> 0
10:57:19 <IanH> RESOLVED: Close Issue 137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-137 by making owl:imports of an RDF graph that does not have an ontology header act like include, in that the target graph is *not* an ontology, and that the target graph is RDF-merged with the importing document's graph to generate a new RDF graph that is then subject to the reverse mapping. ←
10:58:21 <sandro> topic:Lunch
10:58:28 <Zakim> -Zhe
Zakim IRC Bot: -Zhe ←
<sandro> Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line.
Sandro Hawke: Meeting in progress. New content inserted above this line. ←
This revision (#2) generated 2008-10-24 11:03:09 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'good up to lunch'